On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 15:56:35 -0700, Dirk Hohndel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 30, 2007 at 06:31:12PM +0100, Cornelia Huck wrote: > > On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 09:56:08 -0700, > > Dirk Hohndel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > IIRC, Al recently vetoed a similar patch. As far as I'm concerned, > > > > > with > > > > > the correct return values, the patch then looks fine to me. > > So Al, are you ok with this one? > > > > > We need some kind of check concerning the kobject to avoid mysterious > > > > errors (especially checking for the failed kobject_add() is needed). > > > > Whether we want just to inform the user of the failure instead of > > > > failing the function is another question. > > > > > > What are you suggesting? I'd love to make the behaviour consistent > > > everywhere > > > (and am willing to go through things in order to make that happen), but > > > what is > > > the consistent behaviour that we'd want? > > > > I'd be fine with just propagating the error after cleanup (that is what > > for example the driver core usually does), but I don't know the > > surrounding code well enough for a definitive answer. > > Ok, I think I have it consistent now. I also ran it through checkpatch.pl :-) > > /D > > > [FILESYSTEM] add_partition ignores errors > > Signed-off-by: Dirk Hohndel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > --- > block/ioctl.c | 9 +++++++-- > fs/partitions/check.c | 36 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------- > include/linux/genhd.h | 2 +- > 3 files changed, 37 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-) OK, the kobject error handling looks fine to me. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
